Non-BJP parties must get their act together, give Parliament a constructive opposition

An opposition cannot just cease to exist in a mature parliamentary democracy. Everybody cannot become an accessory of the treasury benches.

By Pavan K Varma

Political parties lose elections when they believe that their opponents cannot win. Faith in oneself is one thing. Underestimating the opponent is quite another. This was the cardinal mistake of most of the parties that constituted the ​non-BJP political spectrum. Misplaced complacency led to suboptimal preparation for the electoral battle. Worse, it led to poor strategic planning. Because of the latter, even issues which had genuine national salience were blunted by shoddy messaging and ill-advised tactical choices. The result is there for us to see: an opposition that is shrunken, scattered, disunited and unable even now, in many cases, to fully internalize the magnitude of defeat.

But an opposition cannot just cease to exist in a mature parliamentary democracy. Everybody cannot become an accessory of the treasury benches. This would not work for the overall good of the nation. If those who opposed the ruling party give up the fight after they lost, it would mean that the issues on which they did so never mattered. On several key issues, this is certainly not the case. In a well developed system of checks and balances, the policies of the government need to, wherever necessary, be questioned, interrogated, and critiqued. In the absence of such a process, democratic accountability would be seriously compromised.

It is essential therefore that the non-BJP political parties get their act together. The space and rationale for them to do so are evident. BJP has creditably won an absolute majority for the first time, but it is not irrelevant to remember that they have done so on an electoral support base of 31%. This is the lowest support base ever for any party which has won so emphatically. This means that more than 60% of the electorate did not vote for BJP. Moreover, large tracts of the country have still not been credibly breached by the party and it remains even today disproportionately dependent on its performance in a few key states restricted to northern India.

The purpose of citing this is not to diminish the quantum of BJP`s success, but to point out that there is an equally significant segment of India, both geographically and politically, which has remained resistant to the BJP parivar`s ideological appeal.

The case for a credible opposition is thus self-evident. However, the time has also come to reassess the opposition`s role. In the vision of the makers of our Constitution the opposition would, while fulfilling its fundamental role of questioning, scrutinising and — when occasion demands — opposing government policies, be as committed as the government in power to the overall good of the nation and the people.

In other words, it would, in terms of its constitutional mandate, provide a constructive opposition, without diluting or blocking the government`s mandate to govern for the welfare of the people.

Such an opposition was certainly not in evidence in the last Parliament. Partly, of course, this was because the UPA-II government was exasperatingly in governance drift and besieged by one mega corruption scam after ano-ther. But there was another reason too. In a situation where the ruling coalition dispensation was inherently and visibly unstable, and the prospect of replacing or toppling it an ever present possibility, the opposition became predatory by reflex, opposing even a positive move by the government for the sake of it, motivated only by the possibility of somehow assuming power if the government fell.

It is hoped that, beyond all the temptations of partisan politics and for the larger good of the country, the opposition now would not fall prey to this temptation. In any case, since the ruling party has a comfortable and stable majority on its own, the opportunity for such predatory politics may not exist.

There are some other lessons for the opposition too. The opposition, to be credible, cannot be a mechanical or artificial collation of disparate parts. It cannot be a visibly fractious opportunistic arrangement. Complete organisational unity may neither be feasible nor desirable at this juncture, but a workable system of consultation, networking and coordination of positions in Parliament is certainly possible.

The ideological foundation for this must be a carefully worked out agenda, or at least a minimum framework of agreed goals. This framework could include areas such as definitive parameters to check the direction, content and inclusive nature of growth and development, criteria to audit the fulfillment of promises made by the ruling government, restructuring of Centre-state relations on grounds of equity and functionality, corruption and a concern for preserving the pluralistic nature of our democratic polity.

In addition, the opposition must stop making the mistake of substituting the projection of secularism as a substitute for good governance. The perception, with a few exceptions such as Nitish Kumar in Bihar, is not unfounded that secularism has degenerated into competitive communalism in the reverse direction, and is accompanied by a transparently poor record of governance.

Finally, extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary responses. The opposition must learn to clip the egos of its leaders. Subjectivity of this sterile nature has little relevance when you have your back to the wall and the wall itself is in danger of crumbling.

(The writer, an author and former diplomat, is currently adviser to the Bihar chief minister).